A second appeal regarding the maintainability of an ejectment suit filed by a public trust against a tenant. The court held the plaintiff failed to prove the properties belonged to a public trust as required for exemption from rent control laws.
The judgment and decree passed below were set aside and the suit for ejectment was dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 11.04.2018
PRONOUNCED ON : 19.04.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S. A.No.545 of 2004
R.Saravanan ... Appellant/2nd Appellant/3rd Defendant Vs. 1. Pachaiyappan Trust, rep. by its Secretary, No.21, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 034. ... 1st Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff 2. R.Chandran ... 2nd Respondent/1st Appellant/2nd Defendant Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2003 passed by the IIIrd Fast Track Court of the Additional District and Session Judge, Chennai in A.S.No.258/2002 confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2000 of the Court of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S. No.1937/89. For Appellant : Mr.J.Saravanavel For R1 : Mr.M.Devendran For R2 : Given up JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2003, passed in A.S.No.258/2002, on the file of the Additional District Judge, the IIIrd Fast Track Court, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2000, passed in O.S. No.1937/89, on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
3. Suit for possession.
“ (i) Whether a legal entity which is not a public trust could assume the character of a public trust by the mere fact of its being managed by a public trust.
(ii) Whether a suitor could obtain a decree without establishing its locus standi merely on the basis of the defendant's failure to raise a specific plea in that regard.”
10.The short point that arises for consideration in the second appeal is whether the suit laid by the plaintiff for ejectment is maintainable. The suit property is claimed to be belonging to Rajathi Ammal's trust. Further, according to the plaintiff, Rajathi Ammal's trust is under the management of Pachaiyappan's trust, the plaintiff and according to the plaintiff, inasmuch as the plaintiff, i.e., Pachaiyappan's trust being a public trust, is exempted from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act 18 of 1960, subsequently as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and thus, the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit for ejectment by virtue of the G.O.Ms.No.2000 Home Department, dated 16.08.1976.
failed to establish that Rajathi Ammal's trust is a public trust as envisaged under G.O.Ms.No.2000 Home Department, dated 16.08.1976, the plaintiff's suit for ejectment should fail and the only remedy available to the plaintiff is to invoke the provisions of the Rent Control Act above adverted to.
the above said Government Order and further, when there is no material to hold that Rajathi Ammal's trust is under the management of the plaintiff Pachaiyappan's trust, on mere surmises and conjectures, without any proof, we cannot conclude safely that merely because Pachaiyappan's trust is a public trust, therefore Rajathi Ammal's trust also should be a public trust. In such view of the matter, it is found that unless and until the plaintiff establishes that Rajathi Ammal's trust also is a public trust and thereby, exempted from the purview of the Rent Control Act, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to seek the benefits of the exemptions provided under Sections 29 and 30 of the Rent Control Act as well as the G.O.Ms.No.2000 Home Department, dated 16.08.1976 and accordingly, it is found that the suit laid by the plaintiff should fail. The other decisions relied upon by the defendant's counsel in support of his contentions are reported in 2007 (2) CTC 127 (V.Kannadasan and others Vs. K.Swaminatha Pathar (died) and others) and 2010 (3) CTC 851 (B. Shaji Vs. Sree Pravaraswamy Devasthanam, rep. by its Hereditary Managing Trustee). The principles of law outlined in the abovesaid decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the case at hand.
Civil Court, Chennai are set aside and the suit laid by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1937/89 is dismissed without costs. The second appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sli
To
1. The Additional District Judge,
the IIIrd Fast Track Court, Chennai.
2. The IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai.
3. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.M.Devendran, advocate sr.no.29112
+1cc to Mr.J.Saravanavel, Advocate sr.no.29119
S. A.No. 545 of 2004
nr 21/05/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a legal entity which is not a public trust could assume the character of a public trust by the mere fact of its being managed by a public trust.
Whether a suitor could obtain a decree without establishing its locus standi merely on the basis of the defendant's failure to raise a specific plea in that regard.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dhanasekaran Vs. The A.R.C.School BoardFollowed¶26
2009 (1) CTC 779 (Dhanasekaran Vs. The A.R.C.School Board, rep. by its Secretary, V.Balu)
V.Kannadasan and others Vs. K.Swaminatha PatharFollowed¶27
2007 (2) CTC 127 (V.Kannadasan and others Vs. K.Swaminatha Pathar (died) and others)
B. Shaji Vs. Sree Pravaraswamy DevasthanamFollowed¶27
2010 (3) CTC 851 (B. Shaji Vs. Sree Pravaraswamy Devasthanam, rep. by its Hereditary Managing Trustee)
4 provisions across 4 enactments
R.Saravanan
Pachaiyappan Trust
R.Chandran
T. Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
